MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE: IS <i>STEPHANODISCUS BINDERANUS</i> (BACILLARIOPHYCEAE) AN EXOTIC SPECIES IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION?<sup>1</sup>

2012· article· en· W2153404117 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica Hawryshyn, Kathleen M. Rühland, Matthew L. Julius, John P. Smol

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubfossilDiatomTaxonBiologyEutrophicationEcologyIntroduced speciesOceanographySedimentPaleolimnologyPaleontologyHoloceneGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The eutrophic, freshwater diatom species Stephanodiscus binderanus (Kütz.) Willi Krieg. has long been considered a nuisance exotic alga introduced from Eurasia to the Great Lakes in North America in the early to mid-20th century. However, our paleolimnological data from Lake Simcoe, Ontario, provide unequivocal evidence that this taxon has been present in the Great Lakes region since at least the late 17th century. Subfossil diatom valves were identified and enumerated at high resolution in (210) Pb-dated sediment cores from four sites across the lake. The taxonomic identification of S. binderanus was confirmed using SEM. The historical presence of this species in Lake Simcoe indicates somewhat naturally productive conditions and also refutes the idea that S. binderanus is a nonindigenous species to North America. This study underscores the caution that should be applied to questions of diatom (and protistan) distributions in time and space. Clearly, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207